Comments on: Matt Cutts Lays Down The Law

By: Daniel Tunkelang

Daniel Tunkelang — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:30:16 +0000

Dwight, I wasn’t familiar with LinkXL, but I did find a 2007 press release that substantiates some of your claims. Regardless, I’m not taking any sides in your battle with MediaWhiz. I’ll happily watch from the sidelines as you fight this out in the market, the press, and the courts.

By: Dwight Zahringer

Dwight Zahringer — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:20:07 +0000

I agree with Bob, but- what about LinkXL? I am surprised to see that you didn’t compare the InLinks program to LinkXL. It is clearly a copy of the service we offer, giving advertisers the ability to buy links in the content of a publishers website with no footprint.

Few things to point out (in case you’ve forgotten…) that LinkXL has offered for over 2 years now:

- protected footprint with patented technology
- Buy paid links in Blogs and regular websites too
- ability to buy a DpFollow OR NoFollow on any link (Matt Cutts safe)
- Complete automation, no waiting for us to contact a webmaster

While this has been good press for us as well I feel that it is important to set the record straight. Google hates paid links, approached us over a year ago and we still increase sales each month.

People will do . Agencies want links for their clients, in-house SEO’s for LARGE corporations like to buy as well. It’s not going away.

By: Daniel Tunkelang

Daniel Tunkelang — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:58:34 +0000

I do have some qualms about Google competing for the ad placements it auctions, but perhaps I’m only sensitive to that because they are using their near-monopoly on web search to try to gain traction in the enterprise.

Still, I’ll give Google the benefit of the doubt that they try to keep their organic ranking untainted by their sponsored link sales (though you raise an interesting point about their ads not being no-follow links).

In contrast, MediaWhiz is openly trying to do is sell links aimed to gaming Google’s organic ranking. That does strike me as sleazy, at least.

I’ve complained before that Google’s black box approach encourages gaming. If Google wants everyone else to play fair, they could level the playing field by making their ranking approach transparent. So I don’t hold Google blameless in perpetuating this dynamic. Still, two evils don’t make a right.

By: Bob Carpenter

Bob Carpenter — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:27:42 +0000

Ironically, Google is the world’s largest seller of links based on keywords, which they display on the top of the world’s most popular web site without even the courtesy of nofollow attributes. Google even shills for their own sites, like YouTube.

Presumably, to match Google’s approach to making sponsorship clear, all Media Whiz would need is a small grey “sponsored links” logo somewhere.

By: Daniel Tunkelang

Daniel Tunkelang — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:14:22 +0000

AC, I think it’s actually against their policy, but perhaps they aren’t incented to enforce that policy rigorously.

http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=guidelines.cs&topic=9271&subtopic=9279

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:00:32 +0000

Speaking of Google and ethics, if you search on Google for the free antivirus software “avast”, the first three links (tested today; variable over time) are sponsored links to scammers who have no legitimate connection to the real avast. Why does Google accept sponsored links from swindlers?